IGNORE THIS POST AT YOUR OWN PERIL!

Malcolm from Paraparaumu Beach

BEWARE THE MEDIUM-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT COMING TO AN OPEN SPACE NEAR YOU.
This open letter depicts our experience with the Kapiti Coast District Council:

The Chief Executive
Kapiti Coast District Council
175 Rimu Road
Paraparaumu 5032

Dear Mr Darren Edwards,

I am writing to share my view that Kapiti Coast District Council (KCDC) has served its constituents in an appalling manner regarding the development proposed and now consented by KCDC for 240 Kāpiti Road.
The proposed development required resource consent for several non-complying issues, some which were significant. These were bulldozed through by KCDC in late 2022, fully supporting the developer, and with scant regard for issues raised by neighbouring constituents and ratepayers.
Resource consent was given to build 135 two-storey units and 176 car parks on about 2 hectares, a property presently in a residential property zone, not even identified for Proposed Plan Change 2: Intensification (PC2). This decision, in breach of the current District Plan, means KCDC appears to consider the whole Kapiti Coast is ripe for it to do with as it wishes.
The questionable tactics of the KCDC in support of the applicant/developer can be demonstrated by:
• The Council could have declined the non-complying application if it had any concerns at all for the existing residents. Given that the developer paid about six-times the rateable value of the property, it could leave residents wondering if the application was a done deal long before the residents and ratepayers were able to become involved.
• When the developer, soon after submitting his application, fills in a pond on the property without the required resource consents – presumably to remove a future ‘impediment’ to intended earthworks – which the council and the developer’s consultants deny any knowledge of, even though the pond’s existence is mentioned in the developer’s original application.
• When the residents and ratepayers in the neighbourhood seriously objected to:
o The increase in traffic, over 1000 vehicle movements a day as indicated by the developer’s planning consultants (an increase suggested to be “less than minor”) entering and exiting through their streets – because KCDC had decided (with no community engagement) that this was too much traffic to enter or exit directly from Kapiti Road; and,
o Their belief that the proposed development will become a social housing complex within a very short time – if not purchased outright by Kainga Ora.
• When some 200 to 300 people are going to be living in these units on about 2 hectares of asphalt, concrete, and imitation grass – I cannot see many wanting to buy a unit for themselves, most with a floor area of about 72m2, in terraced blocks, with little internal and external privacy, no carport, little storage, no clothesline, nowhere for kids to play safely, nowhere to put kids’ bikes, toys, etc. Requests for a copy of the Body Corporate Agreement for occupants have been unsuccessful. Neighbours are concerned about large numbers of dogs and cats, as well as mechanisms to engage with residents over issues like noise, parking, and waste management.
• I suggest that, like similar projects around the country, this development will become a breeding ground for discontent, for crime, and for other undesirable activities – thus destroying the desirable aspects that residents in the area have spent many years building.
• When the developer and KCDC decide to hold a ‘limited notification’ hearing, knowing that far more than the small number of immediate boundary properties will be affected by any granting of resource consent, particularly the impact of traffic movements and parking.
• When KCDC employed for the resource consent hearing a commissioner whose company, Incite, is all but a contracted employee of the council. The Commissioner could not therefore reasonably claim impartiality when his business is the recipient of very substantial KCDC contracts each year. KCDC was advised that there would be a challenge to his appointment as commissioner. KCDC’s solicitor attended the first part of the hearing, when the commissioner stated he was ‘insulted’ and ‘offended’ by the challenge. These comments were then included in his decision document. A person entirely independent of the council and applicant should have been appointed. Perception is often reality for many people.
• When councillors are ‘gagged’ from communicating with those opposing the development and the resource consent application on the basis that they are not allowed to be involved in Council “operational” matters. Some people may wonder where accountability for Council operational decisions and processes lies.
• Where are the environmental, social and cultural impact studies to support this population explosion here on the Coast – our roads are shot, schools and colleges are pretty much full, medical practitioners and facilities can’t cope, the public transport system can’t be relied on with any degree of certainty, property rates are increasing at an unaffordable rate – and we have a council more interested in spending money on Te Uruhi than dealing with the real problems of the area.
• With the current council driving through these intensification developments under the disguise of central government policy – regardless of ‘non-compliances,’ and the views of the public – Kapiti may quite quickly become an undesirable place to live.
I can see why so few people bother to vote at local council elections – promises made by those elected regarding ‘listening to’ and ‘working alongside’ their constituents/ ratepayers do not exist – certainly not with the present council. I have requested a face-to-face meeting with KCDC’s Group Manager – Regulatory Services, James Jefferson. Not surprisingly, no response has been received, hence this letter to you.
Most Kāpiti coast residents and ratepayers, me included, want to be represented by a council they can trust and respect. We may not always agree with council’s decisions but rules and regulations, like those in the District Plan, should not be walked over or ignored. We would like to believe that we have been heard and be able to learn how our involvement shaped council’s decisions.
Since resource consent was granted, real estate appraisals for the sale of our property estimate the loss in sales value will be around 10% (some $120,000 – $150,000) due to this impending ‘social housing’ build – a loss, which in our retirement years, we cannot afford nor hope to recover. We would like to know what KCDC plans in the way of compensation for this +$100,000 loss should we sell our property in the near future. This is not an imaginary amount – it has been noted by four separate real estate agencies appraising and valuing our property for sale.
As you may have deduced, people can get grumpy when they have been patronised or ignored. I hope that this letter to you does not fall on deaf ears and we look forward to your response.
Sincerely
Malcolm Ward
Paraparaumu Beach 5032